We heard in the wake of linebacker Kendrell Bell's decision to join the Chiefs that his widely-reported signing bonus of $10 million was off the mark -- by more than $6 million.

But since less than a week before we'd screwed the pooch on Antonio Pierce's bonus, reporting erroneously that the new New York Giants' linebacker got a signing bonus of only $3.25 million, we opted to wait on this one until we could get the full picture on Bell's deal before taking the position that he received a signing bonus of only $3.5 million.

As it turns out, and as a league source has told us, Bell received a signing bonus of $3.5 million. The $10 million figure comes from a roster bonus due in 2006 of $3.5 million, and a roster bonus due in 2007 of $3 million.

Unlike signing boni or guaranteed option boni (which turn into guaranteed salary if not picked up), a roster bonus is not guaranteed and, more importantly, not earned unless the player is on the roster when the bonus comes due.

So, as a practical matter, Bells only guarantee is $3.5 million now and $540,000 in so-called "paragraph 5" salary, which will be fully guaranteed if Bell is still on the team when the regular season commences. The chances of Bell getting bounced before then (and the full amount of his signing bonus getting charged against the 2005 salary cap) are very, very remote.

Coupled with a $2.7 million base salary for 2006, Bell essentially has one year to persuade the Chiefs to give him the big coin. Injury or ineffectiveness this season could be just enough to persuade K.C. to say "see-ya" to Bell, dumping him back into the unrestricted market next season -- in the same way that former Bucs linebacker Ian Gold ended up on the shelf after signing an overhyped contract last year.

Other contracts use a combination of signing and roster boni, but in other circumstances the roster bonus can be considered guaranteed money. For example, Rudi Johnson's recent deal with the Bengals includes a $5 million signing bonus and a $5 million roster bonus that becomes earned in two weeks. Technically, the money isn't guaranteed. But if the Bengals were to cut Johnson before the roster bonus is earned, the team will have given him $5 million in free money for two weeks on the team -- and he'd then be a completely unrestricted free agent, with no franchise tag to restrict his movement.

It's another example of how agents can manipulate reality regarding the terms of a contract, getting an unfairly favorable P.R. hit for themselves and their client when the deal is announced.

And rarely, if ever, having to face the truth regarding the deal.

Logical

03-18-2005, 05:34 PM

Thanks for the info SoCal.

Mr. Flopnuts

03-18-2005, 05:35 PM

gotta give carl props where they're due. good stuff

Spicy McHaggis

03-18-2005, 05:43 PM

Good info, thanks SoCal

Herzig

03-18-2005, 05:48 PM

Let's hear it from the "Fire Carl" now group.

Logical

03-18-2005, 05:51 PM

Let's hear it from the "Fire Carl" now group.Gladly, Carl still needs to be replaced.

Bwana

03-18-2005, 05:53 PM

Gladly, Carl still needs to be replaced.

What Jim said..........

Herzig

03-18-2005, 05:57 PM

Gladly, Carl still needs to be replaced.

While I agree that Carl has had more than enough time to build a SB contender, he does do some good things(ie. Priest Holmes). My biggest complaint about him is that he makes boneheaded moves in the draft.

Bob Dole

03-18-2005, 05:59 PM

Not bad at all.

The structure of the boni appears to make it less likely that we'll get bent over and served the peni.

Pants

03-18-2005, 06:16 PM

So that means we got plenty of cap room left. Here we come Law or Surtain.

Taco John

03-18-2005, 06:24 PM

Looks like Carl finally caught on to how to protect yourself in Free Agency... A bit late, but he's there now.

seclark

03-18-2005, 06:27 PM

Not bad at all.

The structure of the boni appears to make it less likely that we'll get bent over and served the peni.
i'm still laughing.
sec

Calcountry

03-18-2005, 06:31 PM

Gladly, Carl still needs to be replaced.Carl needs to have a Super Bowl Bonus, 98% of his salary is contingent upon us getting to it.

milkman

03-18-2005, 06:44 PM

Damn, so Carl, after 16 years, finally gets something right.

Yeah, he earned that contract extension! :banghead:

Spicy McHaggis

03-18-2005, 06:45 PM

Unfortunately after making this move he'll sit back for the next four years and reminisce about how great a negotiator he is.

Bob Dole

03-18-2005, 06:48 PM

i'm still laughing.
sec

Bob Dole read "boni" in the stupid article and had to throw it back out somehow...

Herzig

03-18-2005, 06:50 PM

Unlike signing boni or guaranteed option boni (which turn into guaranteed salary if not picked up), a roster bonus is not guaranteed and, more importantly, not earned unless the player is on the roster when the bonus comes due.

ROFL

Mr. Laz

03-18-2005, 07:37 PM

sounds like a well structured contract ... well done carl :clap:

(we'll just ignore the fact the it's from profootballtalk and that if this article had talked about how the Bell contract was crap people would be screaming about how worthless the source was)

Rausch

03-18-2005, 07:48 PM

That should leave us with just enough room to trade for Roy Williams and sign a free agent safety...

the Talking Can

03-18-2005, 08:49 PM

its an excellent contract, but only made possible by the fact that Bell is an injury risk....in other words, it is also evidence of CP's cheap ways and leaves me with less hope than ever that we'll pay the $12 mill bonus that a #1 CB costs...we didn't for Rolle/Smoot/Lucas/Baxter...and now we have Surtain/Law as an exact parallel to the Hartwell/Bell scenario...you know CP wants to get Law for a heavily backloaded deal, as opposed to simply ponying up and acquiring a healthy pro-bowl CB...we got lucky once...twice???

Logical

03-18-2005, 09:22 PM

sounds like a well structured contract ... well done carl :clap:

(we'll just ignore the fact the it's from profootballtalk and that if this article had talked about how the Bell contract was crap people would be screaming about how worthless the source was)

LOL I overlooked that.

Manila-Chief

03-18-2005, 10:30 PM

its an excellent contract, but only made possible by the fact that Bell is an injury risk....in other words, it is also evidence of CP's cheap ways and leaves me with less hope than ever that we'll pay the $12 mill bonus that a #1 CB costs...we didn't for Rolle/Smoot/Lucas/Baxter...and now we have Surtain/Law as an exact parallel to the Hartwell/Bell scenario...you know CP wants to get Law for a heavily backloaded deal, as opposed to simply ponying up and acquiring a healthy pro-bowl CB...we got lucky once...twice???

What he said!!!!! .... especially the "we got lucky once...twice???" Seems like it must be 3 or 4 times????

I'll hand it to Kingless on this contract. And, if ... that is still a BIG ... IF ... he regains his health and can play as expected it is a great contract.... as it should have been. No need to over pay for a guy who you don't know if he can play or not.

But, the real questions is ... Why didn't he sign Hartwell who is healthy and has few questions marks about being able to upgrade our D. If Bell can't answer the bell ... some of you guys will be moaning this fact.

But, I give him his due. We need so much (that he is slow about getting for us) that we couldn't sink all the cap money on one player. This way he takes a chance ... and I'm not dissing his taking a chance coz we need more impact F.A's ... and if he hits we are on our way. If not ... we are no worse off for doing it. The "safe" way certainly wouldn't have gotten us anywhere coz our D was so poor.

TJ ... you are wrong. Kingless is great at doing these type of contracts. He has done it before. Most of us have a problem with him because he is too cheap and lets quality player slip by.

As far as Priest ... most in the organization were surprised that it turned out as well as it did. Kingless hit it lucky. But, his first contract was not for an impact player. It was the same type of deal.

Vald ... I agree Kingless needs to be dethroned. Almost every other G.M. could have done this contract.... 16 years is enough time to accomplish a 5 year plan.

Mr. Flopnuts

03-18-2005, 10:46 PM

Not bad at all.

The structure of the boni appears to make it less likely that we'll get bent over and served the peni.

this is the funniest post i've read since i've been here, reminds me of that Drew Carey episode where Drew gets promoted by the old woman at the Department store and sends him a pen saying the pen is mighter than the sword, and Lewis says "Boy, she's really got you by the pen is."

go bo

03-18-2005, 10:57 PM

That should leave us with just enough room to trade for Roy Williams and sign a free agent safety...well, we've got to get some new cornerbacks one way or another...

BigRedChief

03-18-2005, 11:07 PM

So since when has anybody accused King Carl of not structuring contracts well? It was giving the chumps the money in the first place, like Hicks and Bartee.

philfree

03-19-2005, 01:23 AM

this is from Profootballtalk.com

BELL'S BOGUS BONUS

We heard in the wake of linebacker Kendrell Bell's decision to join the Chiefs that his widely-reported signing bonus of $10 million was off the mark -- by more than $6 million.

But since less than a week before we'd screwed the pooch on Antonio Pierce's bonus, reporting erroneously that the new New York Giants' linebacker got a signing bonus of only $3.25 million, we opted to wait on this one until we could get the full picture on Bell's deal before taking the position that he received a signing bonus of only $3.5 million.

As it turns out, and as a league source has told us, Bell received a signing bonus of $3.5 million. The $10 million figure comes from a roster bonus due in 2006 of $3.5 million, and a roster bonus due in 2007 of $3 million.

Unlike signing boni or guaranteed option boni (which turn into guaranteed salary if not picked up), a roster bonus is not guaranteed and, more importantly, not earned unless the player is on the roster when the bonus comes due.

So, as a practical matter, Bells only guarantee is $3.5 million now and $540,000 in so-called "paragraph 5" salary, which will be fully guaranteed if Bell is still on the team when the regular season commences. The chances of Bell getting bounced before then (and the full amount of his signing bonus getting charged against the 2005 salary cap) are very, very remote.

Coupled with a $2.7 million base salary for 2006, Bell essentially has one year to persuade the Chiefs to give him the big coin. Injury or ineffectiveness this season could be just enough to persuade K.C. to say "see-ya" to Bell, dumping him back into the unrestricted market next season -- in the same way that former Bucs linebacker Ian Gold ended up on the shelf after signing an overhyped contract last year.

Other contracts use a combination of signing and roster boni, but in other circumstances the roster bonus can be considered guaranteed money. For example, Rudi Johnson's recent deal with the Bengals includes a $5 million signing bonus and a $5 million roster bonus that becomes earned in two weeks. Technically, the money isn't guaranteed. But if the Bengals were to cut Johnson before the roster bonus is earned, the team will have given him $5 million in free money for two weeks on the team -- and he'd then be a completely unrestricted free agent, with no franchise tag to restrict his movement.

It's another example of how agents can manipulate reality regarding the terms of a contract, getting an unfairly favorable P.R. hit for themselves and their client when the deal is announced.

And rarely, if ever, having to face the truth regarding the deal.

I've asked this question before, How do the agents get paid? Do they get their percent on the total amount of the contract that's signed or is it based on the actual money paid to the player.

PhilFree :arrow:

SoCalBronco

03-19-2005, 02:27 AM

phil, i believe agents get 2%, but 2% of what im not sure. i am guessing 2$ of each year's base salary and bonus proration, but im not sure.

philfree

03-19-2005, 02:37 AM

phil, i believe agents get 2%, but 2% of what im not sure. i am guessing 2$ of each year's base salary and bonus proration, but im not sure.

I'm guessing they get that 2% on the total amount of the contract. Why else would they guide their clients to sign these contracts that will never be paid out?

PhilFree :arrow:

Rausch

03-19-2005, 02:44 AM

phil, i believe agents get 2%,

You have no idea...

Rausch

03-19-2005, 02:45 AM

I'm guessing they get that 2% on the total amount of the contract. Why else would they guide their clients to sign these contracts that will never be paid out?

PhilFree :arrow:

It's a significant amount more than that (based on the 3 players I've talked to. And to be honest, I'm not even sure who their agents are/were...)

philfree

03-19-2005, 02:57 AM

It's a significant amount more than that (based on the 3 players I've talked to. And to be honest, I'm not even sure who their agents are/were...)

Regardless of the percentage it still makes no sense to work your ass off on one of these contracts with all the backloaded money that will never be paid unless you are gonna get a percentage of the total deal. I hate agents..........

PhilFree :arrow:

Rausch

03-19-2005, 03:08 AM

Regardless of the percentage it still makes no sense to work your ass off on one of these contracts with all the backloaded money that will never be paid unless you are gonna get a percentage of the total deal. I hate agents..........

PhilFree :arrow:

For the sake of argument, let's say they do only get 3%, if they represent 10 guys that's some danmed good green right there. 6 digits easy...

philfree

03-19-2005, 03:17 AM

For the sake of argument, let's say they do only get 3%, if they represent 10 guys that's some danmed good green right there. 6 digits easy...

Yeah and to me the agents are working these deals to get the most money for themselves. I don't mind them making money but IMO they are robbing their clients.

PhilFree :arrow:

Chiefnj

03-19-2005, 07:37 AM

I have mixed feelings on Bell's contract. The best thing about it is that it freed up money this year for the Chiefs to make a run at Rolle or another corner. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

The bad thing is that the Chiefs are virtually forced to restructure after this year. If Bell has a good year and doesn't like the Chiefs offer, he's gone and the Chiefs have another hole at MLB or SAM just a year from now.